In this blog we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

This article is a tumah!

Damn, I remember when my blog used to be semi-funny observations about life as an under-achieving white male. Now it’s mostly just political stuff. I need to find my humor again (it’s not a humah! It’s not!). Anyway, on to the subject at hand – a piece from mises.org about Elizabeth Warren’s 11 commandments of progressivism. It’s full of empty rhetoric with little attribution. My responses to the article will be in bold and italic, and I’ll attribute where I can instead of relying on emotion and things that sound right. For the record, I sorta like Warren but I’m losing my affection for her as she turns out to be more of an empty suit that says the right things. That said, that doesn’t mean I’ll jump on the bandwagon unless said bashing is legit. A link for the article:

In what follows, I will first give Warren’s “commandment,” and then explain how each so-called commandment cannot be implemented without official state violence and coercion. I emphasize that I am not going to use hyperbole or paint Warren in a false light. (The author claims he won’t use hyperbole, right after he mentions “official state violence and coercion.”) I’m sure she is a nice person when one meets her. (Damning with faint praise. This could have ended with either “bless her heart” or “with all due respect.”) My point is not that Warren is nice or nasty (even though I just implied that she might be a nice person, which means she probably isn’t), but rather that she espouses a political economy that is based on political favors for some coupled with fierce intolerance toward many.

The 11 Commandments:

1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.

For all of the financial misconduct that we have seen from Wall Street, the problem isn’t a lack of regulation or a dearth of enforcement. No, the problem is that Wall Street is linked at the hip to the federal government and to the Federal Reserve System, which then uses Wall Street as a mechanism to pump cheap money into the system. At the same time, the state then protects Wall Street firms from the consequences that occur when investments in the financial bubbles the Fed creates fail.

Progressive Populists like Warren claim to abhor the tax-funded bailouts, (inflammatory rhetorical question – where’s the proof that they don’t?) but they don’t object to the inflationary actions of the Fed, nor do they call for a halt to the symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and K Street. Yes, they might complain about the relationship, but at no time has Warren or any of her ilk ever called for a severing of the ties between Washington and Wall Street.

What Warren actually is saying is this: We want the state to have an even greater role in directing investments and determining the outcomes, and when the outcomes invariably fail — as we can expect central planning to do — then we demand ever more of the same. The results may be economically disastrous, but they provide marvelous political theater. (Nothing to back this claim up, although I agree with the italics above. Politicians talk a great game but rarely deliver.)

Warren never will endorse free markets on Wall Street — and neither will Wall Street, which I believe to be instructive. Nothing would provide better discipline for the markets than free markets (pure speculation in both of these sentences), but Warren is not interested in market discipline; she is interested in the markets being forced to provide outcomes that violate economic laws, and then demanding even more government coercion when disasters inevitably occur. (And, she eats babies. I think that part was edited out. Yet another wild claim with no proof to back it up.)

2. We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.

Warren obviously is referring to the fact that not all scientists believe we are in the middle of catastrophic global warming — and that makes her mad (97% of climate scientists believe in climate change – note that this author still uses the somewhat misleading term “global warming.” http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Yes, that means that 3% of climate scientists don’t agree and that makes this statement technically correct, but 97% is an overwhelming majority. Note the inflammatory end of the sentence and the sentence that follows, and remember that the author started out saying he wouldn’t use hyperbole or paint Warren in a false light. We’re only at at #2 and he’s already violated that promise twice.). In fact, it makes Warren so angry that she wants the state to intimidate scientists that don’t go along with Washington’s pre-determined “scientific” outcomes.

One does not “believe in” or “not believe in” science (Yes, actually one does). Science is not — or should not be — a deity (Agreed. Science is provable, deities are not.). Science is about using certain consistent methods to ascertain and test various theories about the natural world. It also is about determining probabilities for certain, repeatable events and it should never be hijacked by politicians for their own uses.

If Warren truly did “believe” in science, then she would have no objection to scientists like Roy Spencer and Judith Curry explaining in public forums — without harassment — why they believe the current fears that Warren promotes about “climate change” are overblown.(Another use of hyperbole and painting in a false light. A google search turned up nothing about Warren objecting to anything Spencer or Curry have promoted, but the author makes it seem like she did.). You see, in real science, the “discussion” never is over. Skepticism is the very heart of the scientific method, something that the “discussion-is-over” people like Warren refuse to hear. (Again, no proof, just a base accusation.)

What Warren means is that governments should fund scientific research, and that the research should reflect what politicians like Warren want it to reflect. America’s current obesity crisis, for example, is linked directly to government bullying of scientists almost forty years ago, forcing them to accept the government’s “new” nutrition standards, including the government’s “war on fat,” which has been disastrous. (Again, a wild accusation with no proof. I’ve never heard of a “war on fat,” have you heard of it? That aside, this is just a cheap and obvious reference to Michelle Obama and her various fitness initiatives. Because liberals.)

3. We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.

I am no expert on “net neutrality,” (But I’ll go ahead and throw out a wild claim about it) but I don’t think that Warren is much interested in protecting the interests and rights of ordinary individuals who use the Internet, as she remains strangely silent on illegal spying done by the CIA and NSA which does absolutely nothing to protect ordinary citizens. (Nice false dilemma fallacy there.)

4. We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.

Translation: If you are willing to work for pay that is below what the government demands you be given, then you are breaking the law (Technically, I think it’s the other way around – the employer is breaking the law by not paying the minimum wage.). And what about those people whose productivity does not match what Warren believes the minimum wage should be? They are out of luck.

What Warren does not say is that the original purpose for imposing the minimum wage was never about getting people out of poverty. Instead, Progressives wanted to ensure that certain groups of people, blacks and Eastern Europeans living in the USA, would be priced out of the labor market. (I really should be disabused of expecting any proof for these wild claims, but yeah…what the hell are you talking about? Another conspiracy theory with not a shred of evidence, just pure speculation. But please, go on…) Given the unemployment rate for black teenagers in this country is at an all-time-high, one just might think that the Progressive strategy has worked very well. (And the return of the logical fallacy, this time post hoc ergo propter hoc [I had to look that one up to be sure, which means I’ve already done more research than the author of this article].)

It is the business owners that Warren so despises (Remember, he’s not being inflammatory or painting in a false light) who have to foot the bill of increased labor costs, and if they cannot, then the business closes, but Warren would of course not lose a dime. Lest one thinks she has any respect for entrepreneurs and people who have invested (See my previous statement), worked, and risked their own finances in order to start and maintain businesses, Warren has this to say, according to Progressive columnist E.J. Dionne:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” she said. “Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” It was all part of “the underlying social contract,” she said, a phrase politicians don’t typically use.

Entrepreneurs, in Warren-speak, are social and economic parasites that should get no credit at all for anything. They just take advantage of government services and business success comes almost automatically and the entrepreneurs then extract wealth from the community via profits. (Finally, some attribution. And Warren is absolutely correct here, where she is quoted. Note that after the quote the author begins this paragraph with yet more non-inflammatory, non-false light prose.)

5. We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.

When I was fifteen years old, I worked at a tourist attraction near Chattanooga called Rock City. No one — including the politicians — believed that I should have been making enough to live on my own. Likewise, the vast majority of fast food workers are not people trying to live independently; they are earning money to help pay for their expenses, save for college, make car payments, and the like. (This is one area where I actually agree with the author. Minimum wage is not a livable wage nor is it meant to be.)

First, Warren does not even understand what we mean by jobs and wages. (Just because somebody disagrees with you don’t mean they don’t know what they are talking about or that they lack understanding.) A “job” is the application of labor to the creation of either a producer’s good or a consumer’s good. A wage is the payment given to the owner of the labor services for that particular service. It is nothing more than that. ( Why is job in parentheses and wage isn’t? Interesting choice by the author.)

Second, by insisting wrongly that employment is essentially a welfare scheme, Warren disconnects labor from production. (What? Where did Warren ever make that claim?) To use a Marxian term (Because all progressives are Marxists, of course), she endorses alienation as a labor doctrine in which the worker is alienated from any realities regarding his or her job. According to Warren, the job is nothing more than an income stream to the worker, with the stream having no connection at all with the value of what the worker produces. (Again – what? Where did Warren ever make that claim?)

If we were to take the reality — based upon laws of economics — of Warren’s statement, we get this: “If you are willing to work for less than what the state declares to be a ‘living wage,’ you will not be permitted to work at all, and should you seek employment without permission from the state, we will treat you like a criminal.” (Holy shit. This is so insane that it should be on stormfront.) Unfortunately, in Warren’s new order, (Again, the author is not being inflammatory.) there would be lots of labor criminals, people working off-the-books and ultimately marginalized people turning toward the fringe occupations that the state declares to be illegal. (Again, not inflammatory or leading.)

6. We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.

Student loan burdens are becoming greater, but perhaps we need to ask why that is so instead of telling students that someone else — often someone not privileged to have had a college education — will foot their bills. If pushed hard enough, I suspect that Warren (Again, not being inflammatory or speculative) would agree with fellow leftists that college should be both tuition-free and relatively open-accessed (I’m something of a leftist and I don’t agree with this. Where is he getting this from?). Furthermore, in their minds, that should be no problem. (I have spoken to enough faculty members where I teach to know that a lot of leftist Democrats believe that colleges should not charge tuition or anything else, period.) (Well, given your sterling record thus far in the article, I have no problem believing this. You’re not trying to be inflammatory or anything.)

At the very least, it would seem, Warren believes that individuals that rack up large education debts should not fully have to pay those debts (Got any proof of that? I know, you wussed out at the beginning by saying “it would seem.” Come on, man. This is getting old.), with the payments, instead, falling to the taxpayers, and even though it is quite clear that the personal “profits” from a college education tend to be privatized. Like the Wall Street firms and other crony capitalist outfits, Warren now wants an entire country in which certain politically favored groups (and firms) find their profits privatized, but their losses socialized, and paid for by everyone else. (Again, not being inflammatory or speculative.)

7. We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.

Interestingly, while shilling for increases in these things (which, as always, are covered fully by taxpayers who will be forced to supply the “dignity” to others), Warren is not willing to afford “dignity” to entrepreneurs who saved, took big risks, and took chances with their lives to provide goods and services for the benefit of consumers. (Do I really have to say it again?)

8. We believe — I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.

Warren is not speaking of payment for men and women who do the same job in a market setting (I’m over in the corner, banging my head on the desk (not literally), still wanting any sort of proof for one of these non-inflammatory claims.). In fact, there is a lot of evidence that shows that single women tend to outearn single men. (You know what would be interesting? To read further from one of the few links provided in this article. Take this one. Let’s go a bit further down in the article: Here’s the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it’s known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don’t live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.” Not quite the triumph the author makes it out to be, eh?

No, Warren is speaking of a term called “comparable worth,” in which government authorities determine the “equality” of jobs (She is? If you’re so certain of that, some proof should be easy to provide.). Such a process is utterly politicized, so what Warren really means is that the state will determine the so-called worth of a job, and then force employers to pay accordingly. (This is totally true if you’re batshit insane and don’t want any proof.) (Note: that was me imitating the author.)

9. We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.

If Warren meant getting the state out of the marriage business, I would support her point here. However, judging from all of her rhetoric, what she means is that everyone else should be forced to accept her definition of marriage, and anyone who does not will be fined or even arrested for holding onto dissenting views.

Warren constantly agitates for a thoroughly politicized society in which the state decides what is valuable, what is “legitimate,” and what kind of thinking should be permitted. When former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich this year was forced out because he had contributed some money to a “man-and-woman” marriage initiative in California in 2008, it sent a clear and chilling message to workplaces everywhere in the US: the only thing that matters is politics.

It didn’t matter that Eich was a major player in helping develop the Internet and his skills will be sorely missed. No, the Elizabeth Warrens of this world (Again, not being inflammatory or leading. I hope you’re as tired of reading that as I am of typing it, but we only have two more points to go. Hang in there with me.) care only about a person’s political views. (Maybe that is one reason Warren has expressed such hatred of successful entrepreneurs: they succeed outside of political ideology.) (She has?)

10. We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.

Because the current immigration situation is a hot-button item that I would prefer not to touch (but I will, briefly…), given I can see arguments on both sides, I only will say that Warren’s vision of unlimited immigration (because “reform” obviously means “unlimited immigration.”) into an absolute welfare state would be a disaster. Warren has shown no proclivity to putting any limits on welfarism, and given her political record, I believe she sees new immigrants as a source of political support exchanged for welfare benefits. (Well, if you believe it that’s good enough for me.)

11. And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!

The Hobby Lobby decision was quite limited (It’s way too soon to make that claim, and we’re already seeing evidence to the contrary: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wider-impact-of-hobby-lobby-ruling/), and the implications of the decision certainly did not call for the totally unhinged reaction Warren and others had. The US Supreme Court did not prevent anyone from receiving birth control devices or anything else. All it said was that there were four kinds of devices or chemical compounds which abortion opponents (and scientists, and stuff. In other words, they call them what they are.) call abortifacients that certain employers could be exempt from providing free of charge for employees.

It does not prohibit Hobby Lobby employees from purchasing those particular chemicals or devices; the decision only says that Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for them, given the religious nature of the company’s owners and the fact that it is a tightly-held corporation.

Please understand what Warren is saying: the owners of Hobby Lobby have no rights. They are not people; only those with views similar to Elizabeth Warren have rights. (That’s not what she’s saying at all. But yeah, non-inflammatory blah blah blah.)

So there you have it. William L. Anderson should be ashamed of the horrible article he wrote and Mises should be embarrassed for publishing it. It’s that bad. If I can paraphrase Zoidberg here:

As always, I welcome feedback and encourage anybody to call me on anything that is inaccurate.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “This article is a tumah!”

Excellent dissection of the sort of shoddy journalism which litters mises.org.
I always chuckle when those who claim to pride themselves on logic and critical thinking, put out articles which demonstrate a failure to apply either.
Good work.

I got into a comment war with a few people there. My main thrust wasn’t about Warren but about how bad the article was. It quickly devolved into name-calling on their part, and wild assumptions about my character. Good times.